Elidar Dam-Stablity Analysis FVF

Elidar Dam Project: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resources
Draft Design Report SDG Program Coord. Office
6.3.6 At the end of construction conditions
For the “End of Construction”, Loading Case, the construction pore pressure ratio (ru) has been
taken as shown in Table 6-4 below:
Table 6-4: Pore water ratio for during construction loading condition
Pore water
Material
ratio (ru)
Embankment clay 0.40
Foundation clay 0.30
Loose sandy silt 0.00
Rock toe 0.00
Riprap 0.00
Values of ru in the clay embankment zone of 0.40 and 0.30 for the foundation and fill material, are
typically conservative values used for this condition. Pore pressures will be monitored by vibrating
wire piezometers installed in the dam embankment. If the piezometers indicate unacceptably high
pore pressures, 0.15 m thick horizontal drains will be placed in the embankment shoulders and/or
the contractor may be instructed to temporarily stop placing fill. High pore pressures are not
expected to occur unless the contractor’s rate of fill placing is particularly rapid.
The results of the analysis model for the first and second stages is presented on Figure 6-8. The
corresponding factor of safety value was 1.50. This value is greater than the required minimum
FOS that is 1.3.
Figure 6-8: Downstream slope stability at the end of construction
6.4 Stress and deformation analysis
The analysis is used to establish the stress conditions induced by the self-weight of the dam. The
load/deformation analysis option in SIGMA/w is used for determining the stress conditions under
Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 33

linear-elastic model and for displacement boundary conditions. The boundary conditions used are
all displacement boundary conditions strained in vertical direction at the bottom of the foundation
and strained in the horizontal direction at the right and left edges of the foundation. The top
surface of the foundation and the embankment edges are allowed to move freely in any direction.
The pore-water pressure loading conditions are taken from initial water table condition discussed
in section 7.3.2, for reservoir water level at NWL (long-term seepage condition).
The stress/deformation analysis at the end of construction and for the long-term steady state
seepage conditions is described in the following subsections.
6.4.1 Stress and deformation at the end of construction stage
The stress and deformation results of at the end of construction loading are presented on Figure
6-10 and Figure 6-9 respectively.
The maximum total stresses at this loading state are 180kPa, located around the dam foundation.
This stress level is lower than the available bearing capacity of the foundation that is 250kpa. The
computed total vertical strain (displacement) situation under dry (drained) embankment condition
is contoured as shown belowError! Reference source not found.. It can be seen that the
maximum vertical strain (settlement) computed is 1.2cm and this should be made to be
accommodated in the camber allowance during freeboard calculation.
Figure 6-9: Deformation at the end of construction

Figure 6-10: Stress at the end of construction
6.4.2 Stress deformation at the long term steady state seepage condition
The stress and deformation results of at the long-term steady state seepage loading conditions are
presented on Figure 6-12 and Figure 6-11 respectively.
The maximum total stresses at this loading state are 180kPa, located around the dam foundation.
This stress level is lower than the available bearing capacity of the foundation that is 250kpa. The
computed total vertical strain (displacement) situation under dry (drained) embankment condition
is contoured as shown belowError! Reference source not found.. It can be seen that the
maximum vertical strain (settlement) computed is 2.4cm and this should be made to be
accommodated in the camber allowance during freeboard calculation.
Figure 6-11: Deformation at the long-term steady state seepage condition

Figure 6-12: Stress at the long-term steady state seepage condition

7 OUTLATE SYSTEM
An outlet system generally consists of an entrance device, a conveyance structure, and a terminal
device and control device. Arrangement of the different components would vary with the layout
selected. In small-scale head, steel or HDPE pipes with control valves at the outlet and an intake
chamber fitted with trash rack at the intake would normally be adopted.
7.1 Hydraulics design of outlet pipe
The discharge passing through the dam outlet can be calculated easily, by using equation
= 2
Where: Q = discharge (m3/sec)

A = Area of outlet pipe
HT = total head
KL = constant, which is obtained after considering all the losses in the system.
fL
=K+
D
K = all head loss excluding friction loss taken
f = pipe friction loss = 0.012
L = Length of pipe = 29.79m
D = Diameter of pipe
K = Kt + Ke + Kv + Kb + Kex
Kt = trash rack loss coefficient = 1.0
Ke = entrance loss coefficient = 0.5
Ku = Valve loss coefficient = 0.2
Kb = bend loss coefficient = 0.0
fL Coefficient of friction x pipe length 0.012 x 29.79

   1.787
D Assumed pipe diameter 0.2
Kex = exis loss coefficient = 1.0
 K = 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.0 + 1.0 = 2.7

KL = 2.7 + 1.787 = 4.487
The diameter of the outlet is assumed 0.2m. Hence its area, A, is equal to 0.0314m2.
Outlet capacity at the minimum operating level
The head at the minimum operating level is Ht=1.25m.
1.25
= 0.0314 2 ∗ 9.81 = 0.074 /
4.487
Outlet capacity at the Normal Water Level
The head at the minimum operating level is Ht=3.37m.
3.37
= 0.0314 2 ∗ 9.81 = 0.122 /
4.487
7.2 Structural design of outlet pipe
Since the control valve is at the downstream of the dam, the whole pipe length is always under
pressure of different heads. Hence, at downstream portions of the conduit, excess internal
pressure may cause leakage through joints or cracks into material surrounding the conduit barrel.
To avoid and eliminate this problem, the HDPE conduit pipe will be covered by concrete.
Hence, to reinforce and to protect the pipe from any damage and proper bonding during
construction, the pipe should be covered by reinforced concrete. To allow proper compaction the
concrete is shaped trapezoidal. The proposed section is described below.

7.3 Control structure
Considering the effectiveness of operating the system of conveyance against different unbalanced
water pressure, the advantage of being low cost and minimum head loss gate shall be provided.
Two butterfly valves are recommended here as one is used as stand by and the other serves to
regulate the flow of water.
7.4 Terminal/Energy dissipater
Since the discharge from the outlet emerges at a high velocity, a dissipating device is provided to
absorb the energy or flow before it is returned to the canal. An impact type of stilling basin that
does not depend upon tail water is adopted.
Impact basin consists of a rectangular box like structure with the long dimension parallel to the
axis of pipe. The discharge from pipe is intercepted by a solid hanging baffle, which extends over
the full width of the structure.
The basin width (w) recommended for the impact basin according to USBR recommendation for
design of small dam is a function of the discharge, and calculated from:
W = 1.9 Q0.4
Where Q = 1.5 x discharge at maximum reservoir level=1.5*0.122=0.183m3/s
W=1.9*0.1830.4=0.96m take W= 1m
All the other dimensions are expressed in terms of W as indicated in the figure below.

b = 3w /8= 3*1/8 = 0.375 ≈ 0.38m

a = W/2 = 1/2 = 0.50m
c = W/2 = 1/2 = 0.50m
d = W/6 = 1/6 = 0.17m ≈0.20m
e = W/12 = 1/12 = 0.08m ≈0.10m
H = 3W/4 = 3*1/4 = 0.75m
L = 4W/3 = 4*1/3 = 1.33m ≈1.35m


Elidar Dam-Stablity Analysis FVF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elidar Dam-Stablity Analysis FVF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elidar Dam Project: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resources

Draft Design Report SDG Program Coord. Office

6.3.6 At the end of construction conditions

Figure 6-8: Downstream slope stability at the end of construction

6.4 Stress and deformation analysis

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 33

6.4.1 Stress and deformation at the end of construction stage

Figure 6-9: Deformation at the end of construction

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 34

Figure 6-10: Stress at the end of construction

Figure 6-11: Deformation at the long-term steady state seepage condition

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 35

Figure 6-12: Stress at the long-term steady state seepage condition

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 36

7.1 Hydraulics design of outlet pipe

Where: Q = discharge (m3/sec)

Kt = trash rack loss coefficient = 1.0

Ke = entrance loss coefficient = 0.5

Ku = Valve loss coefficient = 0.2

Kb = bend loss coefficient = 0.0

fL Coefficient of friction x pipe length 0.012 x 29.79

Kex = exis loss coefficient = 1.0

 K = 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.2 + 0.0 + 1.0 = 2.7

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 37

Outlet capacity at the minimum operating level

The head at the minimum operating level is Ht=1.25m.

Outlet capacity at the Normal Water Level

The head at the minimum operating level is Ht=3.37m.

7.2 Structural design of outlet pipe

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 38

7.3 Control structure

7.4 Terminal/Energy dissipater

Where Q = 1.5 x discharge at maximum reservoir level=1.5*0.122=0.183m3/s

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 39

b = 3w /8= 3*1/8 = 0.375 ≈ 0.38m

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 40

Afar Design and Supervision Works Enterprise 41

You might also like